From Innovation to Invention: Why Accurate Attribution Is Critical in India’s Patent Ecosystem

The recent controversy at the India AI Impact Summit 2026—where Galgotias University showcased a quadruped robotic dog later identified as the commercially manufactured Unitree Go2 developed by Unitree Robotics -highlights a critical issue for India’s intellectual property ecosystem: the need to clearly distinguish between innovation and invention.

In view our perspective, this distinction is not semantic; it is legal and strategic.

An invention is a novel and non-obvious technical solution that satisfies statutory requirements under patent law—novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. It is protectable. An innovation, however, is broader. It may involve adapting, integrating, or commercially deploying existing technologies. Innovation drives value, but it does not automatically qualify for patent protection.

This difference becomes particularly significant in India’s expanding academic patent landscape. Educational institutions are filing patent applications at unprecedented rates, often at early research stages. While early filings are not inherently problematic, filing volume has increasingly become a proxy for technological capability and institutional performance. This creates pressure to demonstrate ownership of “innovation,” sometimes without clearly identifying whether there is a patentable technical contribution.

For patent firms advising universities and research institutions, the first question must always be: What is the actual inventive step?

• Is there a technical modification that overcomes a prior art limitation?

• Does the improvement produce a demonstrable technical effect?

• Or is the contribution limited to application, customization, or deployment of an existing platform?

In situations involving commercially available hardware or software platforms, the legal threshold for patentability lies in the improvement—not in the use of the platform itself. Without a clear inventive contribution, patent claims risk rejection, invalidation, or future enforcement challenges.

Misalignment between public claims of technological development and the underlying technical reality can also create downstream risks: incorrect inventorship attribution, ownership disputes, weakened due diligence outcomes, and reputational harm that affects investor confidence.

Patent professionals therefore play a gatekeeping role. Beyond drafting applications, they must conduct rigorous prior art assessments, evaluate whether a contribution rises to the level of invention, and counsel clients on appropriate forms of protection—whether patents, trade secrets, design rights, or contractual safeguards.

As India strengthens its position in the global innovation landscape, credibility will matter as much as filing numbers. Sustainable growth in the IP ecosystem depends not merely on demonstrating innovation, but on accurately identifying and protecting true inventions.

IP firms, understanding and enforcing; the distinction between innovation and invention is not optional. It is fundamental to building defensible portfolios, maintaining institutional integrity, and supporting a trustworthy innovation ecosystem.

The Galgotias episode is a reminder: showcasing technology is not the same as creating it, and using a platform is not the same as inventing one.